| 1 |
Alright then, I will give bash4.4 a try and if there are any problems, I'll |
| 2 |
file a proper bug report. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Best regards, |
| 5 |
Andy |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
On 30 September 2016 at 15:38, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 11:29:05AM +1300, Kent Fredric wrote: |
| 10 |
> > On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 23:56:34 +0200 |
| 11 |
> > Andy Mender <andymenderunix@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > > I believe the main problem comes from /bin/bash and potential symlinks |
| 14 |
> that |
| 15 |
> > > would need to be introduced as part of the slotting. |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > In a pinch you could probably get away with |
| 18 |
> > calling :1 /usr/bin/bash-4.4 instead of /usr/bin/bash, and then |
| 19 |
> > offering no luxuries beyond that, leaving it up to the user to do the |
| 20 |
> rest. |
| 21 |
> > |
| 22 |
> > Then you could test it in ~/ with PATH + Symlink in ~/bin/ ... maybe. |
| 23 |
> > |
| 24 |
> > There would just not be much point, because the real purpose of testing |
| 25 |
> > 4.4 is not for fear of it breaking user experience ( which is a |
| 26 |
> > problem, but not the primary motive ), but for making everything else |
| 27 |
> > that runs with bash runs OK. |
| 28 |
> > |
| 29 |
> > Maybe you could do some horrible QA Violation like USE=multislot |
| 30 |
> > which changes the slot from :0 and adds the -suffix at the same time. |
| 31 |
> > |
| 32 |
> > But I still don't think its a useful or good idea. |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> I am against it as well. The purpose of this testing is to eventually |
| 35 |
> move to bash-4.4 being stable and replacing bash-4.3, so slotting it |
| 36 |
> would make that more complex later. |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> William |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> |
Archives